Mark
Zuckerberg Answers to
Facebook's Moderation of
Controversial Content
PowerfulJRE
| Date
added: 25-August-22
My response...
It appears to me from
watching this that
Zuckerberg doesn't like the
position he's found himself
in with Facebook/Meta,
having to "govern" what
people get to
say/hear/read/watch/believe,
but the reason him and the
other major platforms
(Twitter, Google/Youtube)
are in this very position is
because they failed, early
on in their (and the rest of
the internet's) development
to say "No, we will not
comply, the internet should
be free and open for all."
But we don't have that
internet any more, at least
the masses don't, we have an
infiltrated commercial and
political system of Double
Speak.
When you start deciding (or
siding with) what's
supposedly "right or wrong"
you end up in this situation
that, as he says, isn't
"black or white". When you
repeatedly lie, and it might
only be with white lies,
they begin to weigh on you
until your world falls
apart. Zuckerberg lives this
lie every day and you can
see it in any explanation
about anything he tries to
give. Repeatedly (and this
video is no exception) I've
seen Zuckerberg squirm in
his seat while trying to
answer tricky questions; he
is incapable, in his
position, to provide
straightforward, honest and
transparent answers, whether
it to be to Joe Rogan, his
millions of viewers of this
video, or the
court hearings he's found
himself presenting evidence
to.
Zuckerberg, (like Musk,
Gates and Bazos) just wants
to be the cool kid that made
that cool thing, but he'll
never be that (again)
because he wasn't the cool
kid that stood up for
himself (and everyone else)
for what's right - he's
clearly trying (way too)
hard with Meta. Youtube, for
the same reason, is despised
by many, even those that use
it because it still carries
so much clout compared to
the other video-sharing
platforms out there (the
entrenched masses are slow
to pick up on the
alternatives). Musk is
seemingly now doing what he
can to reveal the
underpinnings of this
mentality within the system
that is Twitter.
I was surprised to see
Zuckerberg on JRE. The only
reason, and we've seen it
before, is to try and win
some ground and present his
case to an audience he must
know is against him. These
things never work out well;
nice try Zuckerberg, but you
had no chance.
It's
Happening
Russell Brand
| Date
added: 24-August-22
My response...
Why is it that the
privately-owned banks
should profit from every
transaction that takes
place? I don't think they
should and this is probably
the primary reason why I
prefer to deal with cash.
The day before watching this
video I had a couple of
related experiences. After
doing some work for a client
(who paid me by cheque
because she didn't have
enough cash - I now have to
cash that cheque), I drove
to a nearby carpark
overlooking the sea to enjoy
a break. Technically the
carpark is Pay&Display
(whatever that means) but I
pulled into a space and
enjoyed a cup of coffee from
my flask.
I came to realise that there
was emerging a bit of a
kafuffle at the nearby
payment meter; I had my
window down a little and it
seemed that the somewhat
flashy new machine was
failing to accept card
payments - I thought perhaps
that some online thing via
an app on a phone was also
an option and that people
were eventually discovering,
after minutes of trying,
that this wasn't working
either. These people needed
to instead pay by cash, for
which few of them had. Some
of them decided to (I think)
go and buy cups of coffee
from the neighbouring cafe
in order to exchange notes
for change for the meter.
"What a faff!" I chuckled
while I sat there for free.
It amused me how things just
grind to a halt like this
whenever payment systems go
down, and they do. Once I
visited a touristy place and
when I proceeded to buy a
ticket, I, and others, were
being allowed in for free
because the payment system
was down and they wanted to
keep people happy and moving
(it was a busy day).
Continuing on with my day
and I called into a small
supermarket. When I came to
the manned checkout (as I
prefer to use rather than
the machine that is the
self-service) it transpired
that the person currently at
the point of paying for
their shopping was 13p
short. Had I been next in
line, and realised in time,
I would have gladly paid
this for this stranger, but
already they had dashed off
out to the carpark to get
some more money. I guess
that even if the next person
was to be paying by card
they could have simply
swiped their card across the
machine, or maybe 13p would
have been too small a
transaction for this to be
accepted?
All of these various ways of
paying, from simple credit
cards where you put in a pin
number, to "Contactless", to
using your phone, or now
your hand, seem to just add
extra complications. They
also don't seem to be as
swift as people might think,
especially when you factor
in when things go wrong,
like when people go to swipe
and they're over the limit
and then have to insert the
card and recall their pin.
Or when a card is declined.
Perhaps there will be a day
when TS(seriously)HTF and
people can't purchase the
necessities in life.
Scanning ones' hand to pay
seems more stupid to me than
swiping a card. Stores have
CCTV and systems are able to
identify people from their
appearance, the way they
walk, or use iris
recognition, so why do we
have to "checkout" at all?
Why not have a system that
recognises you as soon as
you step into the store,
sees what you take from the
shelf, and
you just take what you want
and the system automatically
charges your bank account?
We're surely not that far
away from this, so why this
interim of waving ones' hand
over a machine like a moron?
Creeping normality is the
answer I come up with.
Imagine if it was 20 years
ago, when people were more
used to using cash, or
perhaps cheques or simple
credit cards, and it was
then proposed that we have
all our data and
transactions stored in
systems and that it was all
for our convenience, and
that payment was
automatically taken,
seamlessly, without us
having to do anything (or
dare I say "lift a finger")?
This would be a big mental
hurdle for people to grapple
with - it is said that
"people don't like change" -
the answer, therefore is to
sneak changes in gradually.
When too much of a leap in
"technological advancement"
is taken then people are
prone to reject it, and
then, I have noticed, a step
back is taken, and then
smaller steps are taken
forwards back towards that
same thing.
The progression of Microsoft
Windows is a case in point.
People rejected the changes
inflicted on them by Windows
8 - the Start Button and
Menu disappearing, so
Microsoft brought these
things partially back in
8.1. Now 10 and 11 are more
insidious than ever, such as
demanding users have a
Microsoft Account,
continually doing away with
the traditional Control
Panel, and siphoning off who
knows what data about us to
the overlords.
Russell Brand keeps coming
out with these silly titles
for his videos; they're
short and "scary", but to
say "It's Happening" is an
understatement; this stuff
has been creeping in for
decades and most people fail
to react because it's slow
and subtle enough to be
below the average person's
radar. His next video is
titled "This Is DANGEROUS",
a previous one was "So, It
WAS All A Scam". Oooo.
[Gender
and] The Amount of Round-Up
& Plastic Contamination in
Food
PowerfulJRE
| Date
added: 13-July-22
My response...
(with cleaner language!)
Why are so many people
seemingly gender-confused?
I've wanted to write about
this for a while, in fact I
have written at length about
it, but my efforts weren't
so coherent (which is hardly
surprising given the topic I
suppose) but I was also
aware (as I still am) that I
might get a certain amount
of flack/dislike for airing
my thoughts on the subject.
How dare I? and all that.
This would also be somewhat
ironic given a particular
thing (LGBT...) is
supposedly about love and
acceptance. But we're all
loving individuals here,
right?
The "JRE" clip above is
certainly not the best
conversation to share, since
it's hardly a serious
discussion to do things
justice, and it borderline
(if not blatantly) mocks
those concerned, but it does
echo some of the things I
have previously tried to put
forward, such as suggested
reasons for this 'apparent
outbreak' of stuff.
I call it this because I
liken it to, for example,
some of the news that gets
banded about, like food or
fuel shortages, that leads
people to go out and grab
what they can, thus leading
to actual food/fuel
shortages. Algorithms at
play on social media sites
like Youtube itself can put
people in an echo chamber
leading them to believe
something is a major topic
that the whole world is
revolving around. Indeed,
some social platforms (and
Neocities is certainly one
of them) seem to attract a
type of person, leading to a
projected bias in content,
while other people perhaps
either distance themselves
or just keep quiet. This is
partly why talking about
this, and other such topics,
fall on some easily-offended
ears.
For a start, I don't get why
so many people feel the need
to label themselves and say
or even consider what gender
they are - to me this is not
normal. But I see something
is going around that
encourages this, especially
among youngsters. If their
peers do it, or perhaps a
celebrity does it who they
look up to, then they feel
compelled to do it to. And
who doesn't want to not fit
in?
Overly thinking about
something generally brings
something about in one form
or another. Take an
alcoholic for example that
obsesses over "not
drinking". Doing that will
not help their cause.
Likewise, obsessing over a
popular thing you want to
buy will, should you have
that obsessive and
compulsive nature, lead you
to justify seeking out and
(if you have the means),
obtaining that thing. This
is where the pursuit of
being a different gender
comes in. I've seen it with
the whole "coming out" thing
where a gay person becomes
fixated on that thing (I
watched TV soaps years ago
where this was sometimes a
story-line). As as straight
person I wouldn't have to
"come out" as such, so if
this other persuasion is
supposed to be "normal" why
should one have to explain
themselves? I think part of
the answer here is attention
- if a celebrity "comes out"
then they get attention, so
youngsters, again, aspire to
this behaviour.
I'm certainly not immune from these
obsessive behaviours; I've
seen things I've wanted and
imagined having those things
and have not been able to
let it go until I end up
seeking it and justifying my
decision. I remember doing
this at school when I would
had a crush on someone and
without even considering how
they felt, I put them on the
spot and asked them out,
suddenly, without restraint
or tact, and in front of
others - this is very
embarrassing to look back
on!
But gender confusion? And I
think it generally is a
confusion and partly brought
about by the very topic, but
also, as per the JRE
discussion, likely has other
factors. Chemicals in food
and packaging (plastics are
said to have
hormone-altering substances
in). Water and beef end up
with high levels of
oestrogen in, affecting
particularly those going
through puberty, and thus
ones' hormonal balance.
Puberty, btw, could probably
be considered a most fragile
state to go through, making
us particularly susceptible
to such influences (I
experienced some odd things
myself to appreciate this).
Radiation from phones and
Wi-Fi have been said to have
a particular effect on,
worryingly, a young girl's
egg production, but boys
surely aren't going to be
immune from this.
Incidentally, just this week
I listened to a topic on the
radio about servicemen who
(aged little over 18 years)
were used during the cold
war at nuclear weapons
testing sites; many of them
went on to not only develop
cancers themselves, but pass
on what can be described as
genetic malformations to not
only their offspring, but
their grand-children also.
Phone masts and Wi-Fi
(admittedly considered to
emit a different level of
radiation) could finally be
shown to be having the
effects some people (aka
so-called conspiracy
theorists) warned us about
decades ago. Maybe it's not
the mutations one would have
been expecting, but is this
somewhat subtle influence on
hormone balance that is
leading to problems.
The sad concern is that when
youngsters, who are still
developing, look to take
this further and further
twist themselves
biologically through the use
of hormone drugs and even
surgery. There is obviously
(to me at least) an agenda
(no pun intended) and
financial incentive at play
here. For this there can be
little return and it's
obviously far worse (but not
too dissimilar) to get
getting tattoos that you
later regret. Attention
deficit and the
hyper-fixated people we are
becoming through our use of
technology could also be
playing a part. Perhaps some people
just need something
different to revolve their
thoughts around... me
writing about the subject
probably doesn't help!
[LEAKED]
AI is WHAT Now?!!
Russell Brand
| Date
added: 17-June-22
My response...
When I was new to the
internet, way back when, I
frequently logged into
Yahoo! Chat!. It certainly
wasn't a happy time, just
like with Geocities, when
the service was shut down.
As I recall, one particular
blight within Yahoo! Chat,
and increasingly so (and
perhaps a reason why the
service was shut down), was
so-called Spam-bots. This
problem clearly still
persists today; if you look
at pretty much any one of
Russell Brand's own recent
videos, in the comments
sections, you will find
'spam bots' at play, posing
as Russell, posting URLs, or
trying to get users to
contact them. Twitter and
other popular platforms have
similar issues.
Another way some bots (chat
bots) would behave in Yahoo!
Chat would be by
masquerading as real people.
You would find yourself in a
conversation with them and
it would become apparent,
usually pretty quickly, that
the responses were canned
ones. You'd gain certainty
in this regard by employing
some form of a Turing Test.
I suppose I wondered who was
behind deploying these
nuisance bots, and mostly
that's probably what I
ultimately thought they
were, a nuisance, and
perhaps just set up by
someone who thought they
were being 'clever', such as
a griefer before I was even
aware of that term or trait.
Perhaps I was naive to think
this.
If we fast-forward almost 20
years (as for me it can seem
like that time has passed in
the blink of an eye), did
those chat bots just vanish
with Yahoo! Chat? Or, as is
surely most likely, were
they deployed elsewhere? And
again, by who, and why?
Within the past 20 years
pretty much everyone has
found their way online, here
in the west at least, and
like, me, probably spend a
significant portion of an
average day connected in
some form or another. A
popular Youtube channel or
Twitter account can have
millions of followers, and
content receive millions of
views. Therefore, when bots
find their way onto those
popular channels, as they
tend to do, they gain a vast
audience.
Also, as I now consider, how
have those bots developed?
Because surely they must
have. And furthermore, why
who?
This so-called 'LEAKED'
information regarding a
Google employer's
conversation with AI to me
is partly 'nonsensical' and
partly, well, "what do you
expect?" Further more, if we
consider AI-chat-bot
technology in conjunction
with Google/Youtube's (or
Facebook's) "algorithms"
(designed to manipulate the
user, such as by getting
them to stay on the channel
and watch more videos -
which I believe is only part
of what they're up to) we
can perhaps more fully
"appreciate" the
ramifications of such
technology. Let me
elaborate:
The nature of the leak, i.e.
how the employee describes
their conversation with this
AI entity is nonsensical
because, as with those chat
bots of old, on Yahoo! Chat,
they clearly just employed
canned responses based on
whatever you told it. The
worst thing you can do (for
your own sanity) is start
believing the thing is real,
which clearly in the case of
this Google thing is what
the person was doing.
Obviously the 'chat bot' is
just just cleverer
and has more techniques
(such as actual AI) up its
sleeve.
If we also take that chat-bot-of-old
and consider it as a
project/operation run by
some, say, military outfit
with the
budget/people/skills/motive
to develop it week by week,
month by month, year by
year, for decades (just like
they have with AI itself to
bring us driverless cars and
lure us into consuming more
and more nonsensical
content), we should perhaps
see how far this technology
WILL HAVE come, and what
it's doing/is capable of
now. Not only could this be
manipulating any one of us
on any of these major
platforms, but it will be
capable of doing so in such
a way that we probably don't
see, or appreciate.
What products we buy, what
political party we vote for,
what news head lines are fed
to us and which ones we
believe or give thought and
time to, what comments we
make, what gender think we
are, could all be a
manipulation by an entity
that either benefits from
you thinking/believing those
things, or benefits from you
having your head totally f*cked
with. Considering how our
own governments treat us
these days (and you
might need to open your eyes
a little to see this), and
how our home-grown
corporations treat their
fellow, native, human
beings, also suggests to me
that you don't necessarily
have to point the finger
very far (as the
media/governments generally
encourage us to do).
I've had my suspicions for a
while, that some of our
headline-hitting issues in
the past few years, have
been AI-driven.
In this video [link]
about DALL-E 2 - "How This
A.I. Draws Anything You
Describe", the key line for
me was that it seeks to draw
what we will find
pleasing; this is what
social media algorithms do,
they seek to provide content
that will keep us in the
system. The weird thing is,
the same has been said of
our plane of existence in
relation to the human souls,
and why we chose to come
here... and what keeps us
here. That A.I. can and does
keep us hooked to various
platforms provides evidence
for both Simulation Theory
and reincarnation; have you
ever left a platform only to
find yourself compelled to
return?
Friends:
Rachel Asks Ross To Be Her
Backup
TBS | Date
added: 12-June-22
My response...
Friends was a TV staple in
my younger years and so from
time to time a clip such as
this crops up in my Youtube
feed and I have a few
nostalgic minutes, and a
giggle.
This is one such clip, but
besides what the clip is
supposed to be about I
consider and observe other
things:
-
How Monica turns up at
Joey's apartment (looking
for Rachel) and (instead)
lands her sh!t on him.
-
How Rachel turns up at
Ross's apartment, where he's
there on his own, having a
beer.
I consider how Friends
paints a picture of, and
defines and creates a
culture (among viewers),
where these behaviours are
normal(ised) and acceptable.
If you live in a world where
these things aren't normal
or acceptable, you're likely
to either find these scenes
jarring, or weird. I like
how Joey manages the
situation with Monica; he
tries his best to say
whatever needs to be said
to, at best, help to resolve
Monica's issue, or at least
not make things worse by
giving poor advise. He is
commendable for staying true
to himself in the face of
the sudden arrival of Monica
in his apartment (also a
strange thing to occur in my
opinion, but a normal
occurrence throughout the
entirety of Friends). I
could imagine Monica being
either someone I try to
avoid (my apartment door
would be locked!), I would
unlikely be as chilled out
as Joey (or at least I would
just let the person have
their rant without providing
my 2 cents), or at the
extreme I would tell them to
F-off and deal with their
own drama.
One also needs to consider
the lack of mobile phones in
the lives of these
characters; Rachel turns up
at Ross' place unannounced;
in this day people would at
least txt/whatsapp ahead
(unless your relationship is
as such that it's acceptable
to just turn up). Indeed, if
Ross was there just drinking
a beer, we'd surely arrive
to find the TV on or him on
his phone, but what else was
he doing? Seemingly nothing
- these characters (as they
often are in soaps and
comedy), while
funny/entertaining, are
pretty empty in that they
don't really have any
hobbies or interests; this
to me dissuades the viewer
from being any different.
I consider Phoebe to me the
deepest character, as she
has this "other world" to
her of which humorous
snippets get revealed to us
in various plot lines (just
like the supposed times that
she agreed with Joey/Ross
that they would be her
backup). Who just sits in
their home having a
drink, with nothing else
going on
(unless depressed)?
Obviously I'm likely to be
reading too much into a
piece of fiction, but 1) I'm
not someone that would
literally be sat doing
nothing besides having a
drink, and 2) It grates me
when I've had people assume
I'm doing nothing prior to
when they turn
up/phone/start chatting to
me online. Of course, my
"something" might be just
watching clips of Friends on Youtube.
Dating
Apps SCREW Young Men, Making
It Difficult To Date Women
Timecast IRL | Date
added: 05-June-22
My response...
This issue that Tim
describes, of women having
access to older, more
desirable men, is not a new
thing because of online
dating. I experienced this
during high school (although
I wasn't perhaps consciously
aware of this at the time).
What would happen is this...
We finish junior school and
start high school. Most
people are now new and
there's a four-year age gap
from the first to the last
year, so most people are
older too. Suddenly you go
from being in the oldest
year (of junior school), to
being in the youngest. The
girls now in the first year
invariably "have access to"
or are more attracted to (it
seems) guys in the older
years (there is a natural or
cultural tendency for them
to do this - guys mature
later, women naturally seek
a more protective mate, yada-yada...),
conversely the younger guys
suddenly find their options
greatly reduced (at first it
might appear to them that
they suddenly have more
options because they're
somewhere new, but that
impression will wane over
time).
That Tim also describes how
these older wealthier guys
have access to younger
women, and what this does
to/for both the younger and
older men should not be
considered in isolation -
those older men will grow up
and then what? Settle down
with their younger woman, or
would they perhaps develop
the tendency to keep turning
to the dating pool for that
young lady? The younger men,
by comparison, who (as he
describes) fails to get a
girlfriend, will grow up to
be in that older age group,
and then what? They are
suddenly granted access to
those younger women they
were once denied? Only if
one is not otherwise affect
by years of not having a
girlfriend will that go
smoothly, or be a realistic
expectation. I can imagine a
developed mindset where
those now older men will
have an expectation towards
younger women that they
should just date them
because they are now older,
while likely being less
"mature", and maybe even
less wealthy because they've
been wallowing in their life
of singledom.
Maybe those younger men,
once they grow in years,
will perhaps just sort of give up
on the prospect of finding
someone, or at worst we can
see how this might fuel
suicide rates among young
men (who are also, getting
older, assuming they don't
succeed in their efforts).
The take-home point is that
we can't consider this issue
as being static or in
isolation, it's a trend that
has been moving its way both
through society and time and
some forecasting is required
to see where it's heading.
P.S. The video drifts off
into topics of sex and porn
that you might want to
avoid, or you get to learn
that Tim's porn of choice
involves superheroes
swinging from lights...
